Is it okay to put family first? (Response to royal family stuff)

[Tink-osophy]

I think Meghan would style herself the victim no matter when the staff harassment investigation would have been held. It’s a role she knows well,

It does seem that IF she has been a victim (in any way) she is overshadowing it, herself, now (Harry, too).

 

[Pea-n-Me]

@TipsyTraveler

https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainm...rry-diana-connection-oprah-interview-preview/

 

[Tigerlulu]

Almost unsurvivable?

I’m pretty sure that’s quite a stretch. Was she abused? Was there violence of some sort threatening her? I can think of many situations almost unsurvivable but I cannot fathom MM throwing fits in England being one of them. Wow.

ETA—sorry, I should have quoted the post above mine with the link about the interview being Oprah’s best yet where Meghan says this was almost unsurvivable. It caught me off guard and I saw red for a moment.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

@TipsyTraveler

https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainm...rry-diana-connection-oprah-interview-preview/

Thanks for link. Looks like a typical promo designed to maximize interest. Dramatic music, quick edits, a couple of phrases with no context. Her time with the royal family was “almost unsurvivable?!” Shock! Scandal! Or, um, perhaps she was referring to her very public falling out with her father? Or her miscarriage? Poverty conditions she witnessed in Africa? Oh, suddenly it’s not quite as salacious. Darn. I’m still betting the interview will be rather tame, but I’ll happily pony up ten whole dollars if we get anything close to a “the queen is a hateful old bag!” outburst from one of them.

 

[snappy]

I am going to be tied up Sunday night. Would any of you nice people mind giving me the cliff notes version, sans the parts where Oprah fans the flames?
I am looking for the “just the facts, ma’am” version. That’s the Joe Friday version from Dragnet for all you young’uns.

 

[cabanafrau]

I noticed there was a comment by Harry about how hard it must have been for his mum (it must! ), since it's been hard for Meghan and him and they, at least, have each other.

It strikes me that he is seeing 'everything' through the lens of (his experience of) what happened to his mum (not surprising given his age at the time and how tumultuous and tragic it was) and , of course, there's relevance to that -- but it's not accurate to filter 'everything' through that lens, it skews your perspective.

Does he now think everything that has happened, happened TO them and they haven't played any part in how it's all unfolded? The problem with not taking any responsibility is it disempowers you and you stay stuck in victimhood.

He must have been carrying so much resentment and pain for so long (well before Meghan) and this has enabled him to vent it, but is it appropriately directed? Is it going to help him in the long run?

I've had a feeling for a while that Harry's beliefs aren't all coming from a place that's moored in reality, and that actually might have been a lot of the propulsion behind all the turbulent happenings surrounding the couple that have been largely blamed as coming at Meghan's direction and behest. In certain ways it makes me feel uncomfortable when he invokes his mother's name in correlation to the upheaval regarding the relationship he and Meghan have with serving as official members of the royal family. Partially I find it uncomfortable because Diana legitimately went through a very tough time, but Harry was a child who may have seen and heard things, but he was a child and wouldn't and couldn't have understand the adult dynamics, which were a mix of personal marital strife and professional business matters/palace intrigue that goes far beyond family members. A lot of what Harry likely thinks he knows isn't much more reliable than the speculation the public knows.

I also find it uncomfortable when he brings his mother into his and Meghan's situation because it is a tactic to effectively make himself untouchable as the grief stricken child shattered in the wake of his mother's loss. Not that he isn't or shouldn't have the right to grieve. He absolutely should, and have the right to struggle with incredibly complex feelings about it. That said, it is still a bit calculating to bring that into the public discussion about the current situation with Meghan and himself.

One of the most important reasons I find it uncomfortable that he brings his mother's memory into the current strife is the fact that he's not the only child, not the only brother for whom the loss of his mother isn't a jagged, painful wound. Even if Harry is in fact struggling mightily with the aftershocks of his mother's loss and he's been nursing resentment and pain for a long time, if that resentment involves his brother being the heir and Harry elects to surreptitiously shade the royal family and their lifestyle as a means to make himself feel better while he hides behind the trauma of losing his mother, I think Harry might be in for a very rude surprise when the public remembers that William suffered the same loss and being heir to the throne didn't make his pain magically go away. It's not as if William determined that he would be born the heir. And Harry has publicly claimed no one wants the job anyway.

 

[Cheburashka]

If by “they” you mean the palace as a whole, well then they’ve only served to damage their own reputation by participating in a cover-up. If the concerns were brought up two years ago, then the palace had an ethical obligation to investigate this two years ago. Because now it’s both a scandal and a cover-up, which is not a good look for any of them.

Yes, this is not something the palace sees as good news. They know they're about to undergo an investigation as to their failure to protect staff from harassment.

 

[BrianL]

I am going to be tied up Sunday night. Would any of you nice people mind giving me the cliff notes version, sans the parts where Oprah fans the flames?
I am looking for the “just the facts, ma’am version. That’s the Joe Friday version from Dragnet for all you young’uns.

I think my quote got dragged over from another thread (vaccines). I know nothing about this royal family stuff!

 

[Cheburashka]

Thanks for link. Looks like a typical promo designed to maximize interest. Dramatic music, quick edits, a couple of phrases with no context. Her time with the royal family was “almost unsurvivable?!” Shock! Scandal! Or, um, perhaps she was referring to her very public falling out with her father? Or her miscarriage? Poverty conditions she witnessed in Africa? Oh, suddenly it’s not quite as salacious. Darn. I’m still betting the interview will be rather tame, but I’ll happily pony up ten whole dollars if we get anything close to a “the queen is a hateful old bag!” outburst from one of them.

Look at this promo. It shows Meghan directly going after the "firm", which is the nickname for the British royal family, talking about how they won't be able to silence her.

https://deadline.com/2021/03/meghan...winfrey-interview-cbs-promo-video-1234706227/
PM me after Sunday's interview, and I'll tell you where to mail the $10.

 

[snappy]

I think my quote got dragged over from another thread (vaccines). I know nothing about this royal family stuff!

?

 

[BrianL]

?

You quoted me from the vaccine thread - anyway, no big deal.

 

[TippyThomas]

I bet the ratings for this thing are going to be through the roof.

 

[Donald13]

Y’all have a lot of opinions. Holy cow.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

I think my quote got dragged over from another thread (vaccines). I know nothing about this royal family stuff!

Well now you’re part of the royal family thread — get to reading, we want your opinion.

Look at this promo. It shows Meghan directly going after the "firm", which is the nickname for the British royal family, talking about how they won't be able to silence her.

https://deadline.com/2021/03/meghan...winfrey-interview-cbs-promo-video-1234706227/
PM me after Sunday's interview, and I'll tell you where to mail the $10.

I think the problem is going to be that we have different ideas of what we consider “disrespectful” to the crown.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Thanks for link. Looks like a typical promo designed to maximize interest. Dramatic music, quick edits, a couple of phrases with no context. Her time with the royal family was “almost unsurvivable?!” Shock! Scandal! Or, um, perhaps she was referring to her very public falling out with her father? Or her miscarriage? Poverty conditions she witnessed in Africa? Oh, suddenly it’s not quite as salacious. Darn. I’m still betting the interview will be rather tame, but I’ll happily pony up ten whole dollars if we get anything close to a “the queen is a hateful old bag!” outburst from one of them.

Naturally they’ve maxed out the drama in the previews. But don’t forget, it’s a feather in Oprah’s cap to have gotten this exclusive interview and they’ve said that “nothing is off limits”. If it turns out to be a dud or misleading, that could backfire on Oprah’s reputation. Who knows. But they certainly have everyone talking about it, don‘t they? It’s headlining most news outlets across the globe.

 

[Cheburashka]

I think the problem is going to be that we have different ideas of what we consider “disrespectful” to the crown.

Well, I doubt after seeing that promo that you're honestly still "betting that the interview will be rather tame". I doubt Meghan will disrobe during the interview (if that's what it takes to not be "tame"), but it's clear that she's going to lob direct and severe criticism at the royal family, and that is not tame when it comes from a royal family member. Oprah Winfrey isn't going to host a 2 hour puff piece only on Harry's grief over Diana's death, & Megan's advice on how to make the world a better place. The public has already been treated to that ad nauseum.

 

[NotUrsula]

Reports are always telling us how "Meghan's friends" advised her about this or that concerning the UK tabloids, but somehow we never hear these peoples' names. I have a feeling that's because few people who were part of her inner circle 3 years ago still are. Somehow, she seems to leave a trail of scorched earth whereever she passes, going back as far as her early adulthood.

Anyone who claims that every person with whom she has ever had a disagreement was bullying her, or picking on her, or discriminating against her (or him; the case is the same if a man does it) -- is automatically suspect in my eyes. Normal people do not attract that many supposed enemies, and eventually, when "everyone is against me" a wise person would stop and ask herself why that seems to be so.

At the risk of emulating one of Reece's fluff pet-peeve questions, I'll state right here and now that anytime I overhear the phrase "they're just jealous" I make it a point to RUN in the opposite direction, because that is the all-purpose red flag sign that I am in the presence of a spoiled brat and that spoiled brat's enabler. (Not to mention that the phrase itself makes no sense: the word that's wanted in that context is envious, not jealous.)

PS: I think that the reason that Harry is only on camera for part of it may have been deliberate in two ways: 1) Oprah's audience is primarily female, so they are pitching this as a "between us girls whose MIL's are a problem" interview, and 2) Oprah is actually rather good at getting subjects to admit things not in their own best interests when she chooses to dig deep (though very often she doesn't choose to); it is possible that it was a strategy to spare him a potential grilling for feat that he would go off-script.

 

[TipsyTraveler]

Well, I doubt after seeing that promo that you're honestly still "betting that the interview will be rather tame". I doubt Meghan will disrobe during the interview (if that's what it takes to not be "tame"), but it's clear that she's going to lob direct and severe criticism at the royal family, and that is not tame when it comes from a royal family member. Oprah isn't going to do a 2 hour puff piece only on Harry's grief over Diana's death, & Megan's advice on how to make the world a better place.

Are you serious? I had already seen that bit about “The Firm” prior to saying I bet the interview will be rather tame. Yes, that’s still my honest opinion. It’s like when you go to see a bad comedy movie and come away thinking “What a bust. I already saw the few funny bits in the previews. The rest of the movie was lame.” My expectation is that something similar will happen here. The most “shocking” bits are being teased in the promos and that’s as scandalous as it’s going to get. And, frankly, I don’t consider vague comments about “speaking my truth” to be particularly scandalous. If the criticism she lobs at the royal family turns out to be restrained comments regarding the pressures and stresses of life in the public eye, expectations placed on them, their dealings with the tabloids.... Boring.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Are you serious? I had already seen that bit about “The Firm” prior to saying I bet the interview will be rather tame. Yes, that’s still my honest opinion. It’s like when you go to see a bad comedy movie and come away thinking “What a bust. I already saw the few funny bits in the previews. The rest of the movie was lame.” My expectation is that something similar will happen here. The most “shocking” bits are being teased in the promos and that’s as scandalous as it’s going to get. And, frankly, I don’t consider vague comments about “speaking my truth” to be particularly scandalous. If the criticism she lobs at the royal family turns out to be restrained comments regarding the pressures and stresses of life in the public eye, expectations placed on them, their dealings with the tabloids.... Boring.

It may turn out to be rather boring, who knows, but part of the shock here is that this is just not something that’s usually done by a senior member of the RF.

 

[VandVsmama]

Y’all have a lot of opinions. Holy cow.

Hey, it's been a whole year of a pandemic, nobody can hardly go anywhere, and we've all got spare time on our hands.